THERE'S MORE SLIME FLOWING from the White House than on
the kids' TV cable network Nickelodeon. If you don't get the
analogy, ask a kid. The slimers think that by "outing'' Rep.
Dan Burton's (R-Ind.) illegitimate parenting (the adult, not the
child, deserves the scarlet "I''), they can create a doctrine of
immoral equivalency. Under this doctrine, President Clinton
escapes impeachment. How quickly we've regressed from
Richard Nixon's "I'm not a crook'' to Bill Clinton's "Hey,
we're all crooks.''

The White House denies any role in an upcoming Vanity Fair
article on Burton, but who believes its denials anymore?

It is true that on the sin scale there is no moral difference
between Burton's extramarital affair and the president's. Yes,
one produced a child and the other only produced some
cigars. But the responses to these acts are worlds apart.

In Burton's case, he owned up to his responsibility before the
public heard about it. He says he told his wife and has paid
child support to the mother. The woman was not his
employee, she never filed a complaint, nor was there a
lawsuit or investigation. Furthermore, the incident occurred
more than a decade ago, before Burton was elected to
Congress. At a news conference, Burton mentioned other
substantial differences: "I have never perjured myself. I have
never committed obstruction of justice. I have been as straight
as an arrow in my public duty. But this is private.''

In his admission and behavior, Burton is different only in
degree from NAACP President Kweisi Mfume, who, between
the ages of 16 and 22, fathered five children while he was a
gang member in Baltimore. To his everlasting credit and his
children's benefit, Mfume got his act together and took
personal responsibility, including financial responsibility, for
his out-of-wedlock offspring.

Those are the differences, and they are very big differences.
Had Bill Clinton "merely'' had a sexual encounter with
Monica Lewinsky in the White House, it would still have been
outrageous. He still would have hurt his family. The office of
the presidency would still have been sullied. But he would not
have committed a potentially impeachable offense. His fate
would have been left to the opinion polls and historians. But
he lied about his affair under oath. And the forthcoming
report by the Office of the Independent Counsel is likely to
present evidence that he caused others to lie and tried to
keep authorities from learning the truth.

Last weekend's talk shows indicated a further erosion of
support for the president among Democrats. Sen. Daniel
Patrick Moynihan of New York flatly stated on ABC that the
president's lie under oath in the Paula Jones deposition in
which he denied having sex with Lewinsky qualifies as
perjury. How much longer can Democrats keep Clinton at the
top of their party when he is doing more for the Republicans
than for his fellow Democrats? Clinton is a better campaign
weapon for Republicans than David Duke ever was for
Democrats. Democrats are poised for disaster in November
and a possible meltdown in 2000, similar to what happened
to Republicans following Watergate.

Mfume and Burton acknowledged their wrongdoing and are
paying the consequences for their actions. In doing so, they
preserve a moral standard that benefits all of society. But
President Clinton wants us to believe that the standard
doesn't exist, or shouldn't apply to him, or should be ignored
because he has the power to save the nation.

Arrogance may not be an impeachable offense, but it can
lead to actions that are. In Clinton's case, it
has.

9/08/98: Joe Lieberman and the Democrats' conscience 9/04/98: Clinton vs. Reagan and the struggle for power 9/02/98: If only Bubba had been a Boy Scout 8/31/98: Liberal clergy and the Lewinsky affair
8/27/98: Combating the terrorists among us 8/25/98: The president as 'Chicken Little'8/20/98: That was no apology 8/18/98: Big government's crab grab 8/14/98:Untruths, half-truths and anything but the
truth8/12/98: Lying under oath: past and present impeachable offenses 8/10/98: Endangered species 8/04/98: In search of an unstained president
7/31/98: The UK is ahead of US in one area... 7/28/98: Murder near and far7/21/98: Telling the truth abouthomosexual behavior 7/17/98: One Nation? Indivisible? 7/14/98: Who cares about killing when the 'good times' are rolling? 7/10/98: George W. Bush: a different 'boomer' 7/08/98: My lunch with Roy Rogers7/06/98: News unfit to print (or broadcast) 6/30/98: Smoke gets in their eyes6/25/98: Sugar and Spice Girls
6/19/98: William Perry opposed technology transfers to China 6/19/98: The Clinton hare vs.the Starr tortoise6/17/98: The President's rocky road to China
6/15/98: Let the children go 6/9/98: Oregon: the new killing fields 6/5/98: Speaking plainly: the cover-up continues
6/2/98: Barry Goldwater: in our hearts 5/28/98:The Speaker's insightful remarks 5/26/98: As bad as it gets
5/25/98:Union dues and don'ts5/21/98:
Connecting those Chinese campaign
contribution dots
5/19/98: Clinton on the couch
5/13/98:
John Ashcroft: another
Jimmy Carter? 5/8/98: Terms of dismemberment 5/5/98: Clinton's tangled Webb
4/30/98: Return of the Jedi 4/28/98: Desparately seeking Susan4/23/98: RICO's threat to free-speech and expression4/21/98: Educating children v. preserving an institution 4/19/98: Analyzing the birth of a possible new nation 4/14/98: What's fair about our tax system?4/10/98: CBS: 'Touched by a perv' 4/8/98: Judge Wright's wrong reasoning on sexual harassment 4/2/98: How about helping American cities before African? 3/31/98:Revenge of the children 3/29/98: The Clinton strategy: delay, deceive, deny, and destroy3/26/98: Moralist Gary Hart3/23/98: CNN's century of (liberal) women3/17/98: Dandy Dan3/15/98: An imposed 'settlement' settles nothing3/13/98: David Brock's Turnabout